|WikiProject Psychology||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
OK, so.... why on earth is the "separate to this" section 95% of the article? Canter isn;t the end all and be all of forensic psychology. Heck, with some pretty serious bungles in his life (such as supporting the "Jack the Ripper diary" of James Maybrick as legitimate even though it's a proven hoax) one has to wonder how why he gets top and only billing here. DreamGuy 10:03, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
There is less info on Forensic Psyc in the main article than the the psyc article? So someone goes to Psyc, reads about Forensic Psyc, and then says 'gee i feel like reading a smaller amount of it"?
Edit: Also, forensic psychology is used in profiling, not just the racial profiling, either, but say, to determine the motives, background, current possible jobs, etc of serial murderers, rapists, etcetera.; but psychology is a relatively new field and moreso, forensic psychology.
Merge from Criminal psych and Forensic psychotherapy
I think Criminal psychology and Forensic psychotherapy are better in this article with re-directs from them to this article. At the moment they are both in effect, stubs--Ziji 07:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well, the reference on Forensic psychotherapy describes the practitioner as a psychiatrist, while a forensic psychologist is a psychologist. (There is a big difference). Also, a forensic psychologist does not specialize in Forensic psychotherapy. In fact, I am not sure what Forensic psychotherapy is as a specialty. What is specific about it that any psychotherapist dealing with offenders does not do? --Mattisse 19:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Criminal psychology seems to be a vague article about profiling which is something a variety of persons do, including nonpsychologists like FBI personal. It also talks about Michel Foucault, who is not a psychologist nor a mental health practitioner of any sort but a philosopher talking about general concepts related to crime and punishment. I am not sure what the point of the article is. --Mattisse 19:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- The Criminal Psychology article has a number of problems which I have raised on the talk page.
Change to Categorisation
I believe the problems discussed by User:Mattisse and User:Ziji above arise in part from the placement of Forensic Psychology as a lead category. Forensic Psychology, along with Forensic Psychotherapy, and Correctional_psychology (a lonely stub identified as drifting disconnectedly) may be categorised under Criminal Psychology. This latter category can subsume a lot of topics currently not covered, or covered but not connected into the Psychology Topics currently (e.g. recidivism and risk assessment). I would like this change to be considered (and hopefully supported) by others. There's no talk going on in the Psychology Portal categories, so I'm not exactly sure of the best place to take this. Thanks for any input! Anterelic (talk) 02:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Against merge with Forensic Psychiatry
All the reference citations are from forensic psychology sources. The article is about forensic psychology and nothing else. Please do not merge this article with another, or merge another article into this one. --Mattisse 23:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the first comment on this page, this should not be merged with Forensic Psychiatry, im currently studying forensic psychology and there are DEFINATELY distinct differences between the two. However i believe a 'See also' link would be more appropriate.
I too am a student in Forensic Psychology and would argue that although the fields are similar, they are moreso distinct and unique. As another responder wrote, training in each area is very different which leads to different conceptualizations of forensic issues and a different breadth of applicability and research. Forensic psychology is not only a clinical field, but also a research field. There are a number of forensic psychologists who spend a great deal of their time conducting empirical research, whereas this is much less common for forensic psychiatrists.
No, this should absolutely not be merged with Forensic Psychiatry. The two disciplines are closely related, as clinical psychology and psychiatry are, but two distinct fields. With very different training models and very different perspectives to investigation. There should be a See Also... linking to F. Psychiatry. PsychPhDgonnaB
To combine these areas would be to perpetuate the confusion between psychologists and psychiatrists. There are many significant differences between the fields and to combine them would be a loss of information.
- I agree, they are two different things, such as clinical psychology and psychiatry. Who made the proposal to merge both articles? Clearly he or she doesn't know too much about either field...That said, this article needs a lot of work. Raystorm 16:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
- A lot of (unsigned) comments on this question in various places on the page, which I have brought together under one heading. The original suggestion appears to have been deleted at some point, however I can't see much point in searching through old versions given the apparent consensus. If you disagree you might like to see if conflicting points of view have been removed previously. Anterelic (talk) 02:54, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- Graphology does not fall under the practice of Forensic Psychology. It would be more appropriated located under another area of Forensic Science. Tamara Young (talk) 16:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Forensic Psychology is the intersection of Psychology and the Law (not just the Criminal Justice System). Forensic, is derived from the latin, "forum" (or more accurately, fora). For example, in addition to competency, sanity, risk assessment, and the 0.01% criminal profiling, that is already listed in this article, foresnsic psychologists provide services for conservatorship evaluations, child custody evaluations, jury selection consultation, and clinical evaluation and treatment for populations including but not limited to prisons, jails, in-patient units, and social services. Basically, anything that requires psychological consultation, evaluation, assessment, and/or treatment within the legal setting. Forensic psychologists may also develop community programs designed to address domestic violence and generalized crime.
I am just wondering how long it would take for me to go to school for forensic psychology. This is something I have wanted to do for a while. I hope I get a comment back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 20:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- Depends where you are (what country and what jusisdiction). —Mattisse (Talk) 01:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- Regardless of where in the world one might seek to practice forensic psychology, some graduate level study of psychology would be required. Typically this would involve an MA or doctoral degree. The choice would depend on whether or not one wished to practice as a licensed psychologist, and the requirements for licensure in your locality.Photoarchiver (talk) 05:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I was wondering if anyone knew what kind of high school and college courses could better prepare me for a postion in this field of forensics. Please comment back or email me at email@example.com
Dayven 02:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
U.S. bias in this article
This article is very heavily biased towards law and psychology as practiced in the United States. I am a forensic psychology student in Britain, and did not find much of value here. The subject is one of international importance, with large variations between countries which should be reflected in the article. Can any one help me give it a more worldwide perspective? Frank Walsh (1962) (talk) 14:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I really think there ought to be a criticism section in this article. There are many people, most notably research psychologists (that adhere to the scientific method) who question the scientific basis of the opinions of forensic psychologists. And there are definite problems with allowing such a flimsy science to exert such a high degree of influence in criminal court. There are many instances in which "expert testimony" in criminal cases is essentially scientifically unfounded but yet still weighs heavily on the court's decision. I think some of these cases, as well as the criticism of both the "science" and the influence of forensic psychology should be mentioned. I can gather some of these sources, and contribute to this section, how do others feel about this? Utaneus (talk) 06:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Limited In Scope
After reading this page, I think it is due some revisions. Despite the length of the article it misinforms at times. Starting with the introductory paragraph, I would suggest expanding the scope of the definition so that it is more inclusive of the forensic psych professional spectrum. Possibly a major undertaking, but a reworking of the language here is needed.Stewaj7 (talk) 23:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section., and are posted here for posterity. Following
|There's a lot of good information here, but because of the way that the article is organized, there's also a lot of redundancy. The article needs to be re-organized somewhat to aggregate related information so that it isn't scattered throughout. I went through and fixed a variety of spelling errors, but I'm not sure I caught all of them. Tamara Young 20:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)|
Last edited at 20:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 15:22, 29 April 2016 (UTC)